Did the US Break International Law by invading Iraq?


Chewy
#1
I have posted the following on a US based forum, the results have been mixed to be mild however does this issue hold water?


My understanding is The Constitution of the United States allows treaties signed by the President and ratified by the Senate are part of the "supreme Law of the Land."

The United Nations Charter, which the United States wrote in large part, and signed and ratified as a treaty in 1945. Not only is the UN Charter it an international treaty signed by the US to take part in it is also tied into your constitution.

Except in response to an armed attack, Nations can not threaten or engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council.

Your President swore to uphold and defend the Constitution. Yet he claims the right to ignore your treaty obligations and instigate a war with Iraq, with or without the approval of the United Nations.




Principle VI
The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:
(a) Crimes against peace:
(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).
(b) War crimes:
Violations of the laws or customs of war which include, but are not limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave-labour or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, of persons on the Seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity.
(c) Crimes against humanity:
Murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds, when such acts are done or such persecutions are carried on in execution of or in connection with any crime against peace or any war crime.

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.
 
Reverend Blair
#2
Yes, it holds water. You might want to look up Ramsey Clark too.

None of that is likely to do much good though...those that support the war generally take the tact that Iraq was in violation of UN restrictions placed on it after the Gulf War, so the US was just enforcing those restrictions.

That's ridiculous, of course...the US has no right to unilaterally enforce UN rules, especially when the UN very vocally and adamantly tells them not to. It is one of the arguments you are going to face though, and it is extremely unlikely that those opposing you will listen to any rebuttal you put up. Instead they'll just yell and scream and say the same things over again in an attempt to silence you.
 
Chewy
#3
Being the lone Canuck in the forum and thus far holding my own I am lucky these guys don't just blabber over me. Thanks for the tip on Ramset Clark. I have also posted the failed attempt to charge
General Franks.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3026371.stm (external - login to view)

And the US's request for exemption of War Crimes.
www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1112594.htm (external - login to view)
 
peapod
#4
You two are very interesting characters! You present your views and facts without the usual emotional crap. Make things a little easier to understand. Interesting reading by both of you. What the heck do the two of you do for fun? Thanks for the interesting reads.
 
Andem
#5
Here, here, peapod!

I also agree with what Rev. Blair is saying: They will repeat the same thing over and over again as a way to silence you. Even when their supporting arguements have lost any support.
 
Prometheus
#6
Quote:

Except in response to an armed attack, Nations can not threaten or engage in warfare without the authorization of the UN Security Council.

Although an older article, this link addresses this point fairly clearly.

www.globalpolicy.org/security...ernational.htm (external - login to view)

Any free thinking person, regardless of nationality, can see that the current US administration has stepped out of bounds. And there are several individuals who should be held accountable for their actions while in Iraq.
 
Chewy
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by peapod

You two are very interesting characters! You present your views and facts without the usual emotional crap. Make things a little easier to understand. Interesting reading by both of you. What the heck do the two of you do for fun? Thanks for the interesting reads.

Fun... I live in the Okanagan! It's all good here. As for emotions well I'm a youth worker, I get all the name calling and drama at work.
 
vista
#8
Here is a story that was ignored in U.S. media...

that goes without saying!

War Critics Astonished as U.S. Hawk Admits Invasion Was Illegal

Oliver Burkeman and Julian Borger
The Guardian UK


International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.

In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.

But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.

www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...089158,00.html (external - login to view)
 
Reverend Blair
#9
I've linked to that in a few places, Vista. The most common response by the Bu****es is to call the Guardian names, like what Perle said is the fault of the place that reported it.

I think that's a major part of the problem...things have become so polarised that reason, or even simple thoughtfulness, has become a thing of the past.

The really funny thing is that the "left" that the Bu****es hate so much has been begging that something be done about Saddam since members of the Bush administration were still posing for photo-ops with him.

That we now oppose an illegal war fought in the wrong way for the wrong reasons suddenly makes us conspirators of Saddam's. Truly bizarre.
 

Similar Threads

0
Don't Break The Elastic!!
by iamcanadian | Mar 6th, 2006
no new posts